Anti-Science: Those Who Wish to Debate Climate Threatened with Death or Jail

Like Bush Saying “You’re Either With Us or Against Us”

Preface: The scientific method requires allowing a free-for-all of hypotheses, which then rise or fall based upon the results of actual experiments.

For example, imprisoning Galileo for life because he didn’t agree with the “accepted” consensus that the Sun revolved around the Earth was not a great example of the scientific method. Instead of conducting experiments to see whether the Earth or Sun were the center of the Solar System, those with the prevailing view simply silenced the dissenter.

Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that many theories that were universally accepted and “known” to be true turned out to be false. See these examples from the Houston Chronicle and the Guardian.

Noam Chomsky said years ago that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:

Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something. Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we’d probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I’d even agree to it, because there’s just no other alternatives right now.”

In 2006, Grist called for Nuremberg-style trials for climate skeptics. (The article was later retracted.)

In 2008, prominent Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be “thrown into jail.”

The same year, British journalism professor Alex Lockwood said that writers questioning global warming should be banned.

In 2009, a writer at Talking Points Memo advocated that global warming “deniers” be executed or jailed. (He later retracted the threat.)

James Lovelock – environmentalist and creator of the “Gaia hypothesis” – told the Guardian in 2010:

We need a more authoritative world. We’ve become a sort of cheeky, egalitarian world where everyone can have their say. It’s all very well, but there are certain circumstances – a war is a typical example – where you can’t do that. You’ve got to have a few people with authority who you trust who are running it. And they should be very accountable too, of course.

But it can’t happen in a modern democracy. This is one of the problems. What’s the alternative to democracy? There isn’t one. But even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.

And there are many other examples of threats made in regard to the climate debate.

Postscript: If we can’t have free speech and an open scientific debate, then we are no longer living in a democracy or a society which follows the scientific method. Threatening scientific debate is anti-science and anti-liberty.

Were those who questioned the likelihood of an imminent ice age also threatened with death or imprisonment?

Moreover, it is also concerning that many of the “solutions” proposed to combat a changing climate could do more harm than good (and see this). That’s sort of like invading Iraq after 9/11 because we had to “do” something…

Let’s say that – hypothetically – 100% of all climate scientists reached a consensus that manmade global warming from carbon dioxide was an imminent threat. Shouldn’t we choose approaches that actually work – and which do more good than harm (more) – instead of messing things up even further?

Let’s add in how the idea of global warming was largely manufactured by the global government types. Reference: Club of Rome.

UniverseWeAre

Just because an idea is politicized doesn’t mean it is inherently false.

PJ London

No, it is demonstrably false.

UniverseWeAre

So how exactly did somebody demonstrate that the CO2 molecule absorbs energy from a different part of the spectrum or not at all?

PJ London

What on earth are you talking about?

“absorbs energy from a different part of the spectrum” Different from what?

“or not at all” do you know any physics?

Which study demonstrates that CO2 is a “Greenhouse” gas?
Date and authors please, not just references to some paper from 1890 by someone who refers to other (dubious) statistics.
How does CO2 “trap” heat?
Why does a NASA study show that CO2 in fact reflects incoming solar energy?

UniverseWeAre

Yes different molecules absorb energy at different wavelengths along a spectrum.

Here is the one specifically for CO2. These results are the actual data which you can feel free to reproduce at any time.

I understand that perfectly, I was referring to your comment which was meaningless. Which, if you could read was exactly my point.

I owe my life to the “Greenhouse” effect, duh So why is CO2 a greenhouse gas and Nitrogen, Oxygen etc not?

The concept that CO2 is somehow different is nonsensical, and the “Science” which somehow makes CO2 special as compared to say Methane is nonsensical.

You still have not shown why CO2 is in any way different from any other atmospheric gas. Why CO2 and not, say H2O or CH4, is the frightener.

Where is the proof that CO2 retains more heat from the earth than it reflects from the sun? In which case, it would be a cooling agent, as per NASA.

There is none, it was postulated in the last century and has not been verified since.

“The effect of adding man-made CO2 is predicated in the theory of greenhouse gases. This theory was first proposed by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, based on earlier work by Fourier and Tyndall.”
But : “Arrhenius’ absorption values for CO2 and his conclusions met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands, and published experimental results that seemed to show that absorption of infrared radiation by the gas in the atmosphere was already “saturated” so that adding more could make no difference”

So you say, there is more incoming CO2 wavelength than outgoing,, proving absorption, refuted by : “It is nature that cherry picks wavelength as far as molecular absorption is concerned. On the contrary, thermal emission is broad band and it depends on temperature. Hence what you see in the full spectrum (the background) reflects the increase of surface temperature.”
please do not try to hoodwink people with kindergarten physics and somehow pretend that this is “Fact”. The science is not proven and there is no consensus.

UniverseWeAre

You call it nonsense while rational people see evidence. Sounds like you’re the one with the problem here.

CO2 definitely is different than H2O, O2, N2 and CH4 which are all different from each other.

Experiments have been done to determine how they’re different and the results of the experiments have been made available for everybody to see.

The greenhouse effect truly does exist and there is no denying that fact. CO2 is one of the gasses that is considered a greenhouse gas. There is no denying that fact either.

Your rambling has no effect on those facts no matter how horribly you bend logic or the scientific method.

whiteaglesoaring

CO2 not only absorbs energy from two narrow bands of the spectrum and temporarily stores that energy, but it also emits that energy in all directions as photons. Your CO2 greenhouse has huge holes in it as does your analysis.

PJ London

You obviously did not read or do not understand my comment,

I do not know how I could make it simpler, but it is not the simple facts that anyone is arguing, only the fairytale conclusions. (except where they make up the “facts” with deliberately distorted data)

“please do not try to hoodwink people with kindergarten physics and somehow pretend that this is “Fact”. The science is not proven and there is no consensus.

UniverseWeAre

I read what you wrote but definitely didn’t understand it.

It is apparent that you believe that you understand it.

How about you just answer a single question instead of doing the copy and paste thing…

Do you agree that the greenhouse effect exists?

PJ London

I agree “a” greenhouse effect exists.

Define what you mean by “the greenhouse effect”

UniverseWeAre

This splitting hairs reminds me of the time I watched president Clinton discuss what the definition of, “is,” is.

Please describe the greenhouse effect you agree exists.

PJ London

One cannot intelligently discuss anything unless one agrees on the language being used.
A greenhouse creates controlled environment, by isolating the interior “atmosphere” from the external environment.
It may cool or heat the internal atmosphere and add or exclude specific elements, such as additional CO2 to increase the rate of growth. This controlled environment allows for “unnatural” (with regard to the immediate surrounds) rates of plant growth and creates what is called the “greenhouse effect”
Now unless that is your understanding of Greenhouse, then please define your terms.
This is not splitting hairs it is excluding the nonsense which is introduced into serious discussions by people who have ulterior motives or are just too lazy to think properly.

UniverseWeAre

Great that is a definition / description we can work with.

Now I need to ask you about the, “internal atmosphere,” that gets cooled and heated.

What is that atmosphere made of and by what process does it absorb energy?

PJ London

Please do not try that, you have said there is such a thing as “The Greenhouse effect” please define your term

UniverseWeAre

First you want us to agree on terms so that the issue can be intelligently discussed.

Why then, when I agree to use your term, do you tell me to stop?

For the sake of this discussion your description will work perfectly. There we agree on something. Now we can discuss it intelligently. And… my first question that you need to answer intelligently is…

What is the “atmosphere” within the greenhouse made of and by what mechanism does it gain or lose energy in the form of heat?

PJ London

I have ben taught debating, you are resorting to Sophistry,

1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.

2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

Either define your term or explain how the interior atmosphere of a greenhouse relates to the global warming.

I have already defined a Controlled environment separated from the external environment. the mechanism of heat exchange and retention is not relevant as the cases are different.

I say again “please do not try to hoodwink people with kindergarten physics”

UniverseWeAre

It is fun watching you dance around answering that one question. 🙂

We have already agreed that your description / definition of the term: greenhouse is adequate for this discussion.

We’ve agreed upon a model to use and now we’re getting to the details of how one component of the agreed upon model works.

You say: “I have already defined a Controlled environment separated from the external environment. the mechanism of heat exchange and retention is not relevant as the cases are different.”

Your definition contains something called an atmosphere that exists inside this greenhouse and that it can be warmed or cooled. What that atmosphere is composed of and how it absorbs, retains and emits heat energy is not only relevant to this discussion, it is central to it.

I’ll ask again. What is the atmosphere in your greenhouse composed of and by what mechanism does this substance gain or lose heat energy?

If I were asked that question I’d be forced to answer accordingly…

The greenhouse atmosphere in your model is composed of different gasses. The atmosphere inside the greenhouse can be warmed because some of the gasses it is composed of are able to absorb infrared energy. The atmosphere in the greenhouse can be cooled because some of the gasses in the greenhouse atmosphere also emit the absorbed infrared energy.

If you agree with my answer to that question then we can proceed. If you disagree with it then I eagerly await your own nuanced explanation which, if valid, will turn the science of physics on its head.

PJ London

There you go again,
1) I want to see if you agree that the earths atmosphere is a “Controlled” environment, if not then you are comparing apples with Oranges.

Secondly your statement ” gases it is composed of are able to absorb infrared energy.” is only one aspect of radiation that can be a “warming” agent.
Thirdly within the Controlled greenhouse there are various methods of warming and cooling not simply radiation

So you see there are numerous aspects that require you to define what you mean by The Greenhouse effect,
But you won’t do that because then your spurious arguments leading to “global warming” will fall apart.

UniverseWeAre

First… I’d like to point out that you STILL haven’t answered the question or explicitly agreed with my answer to it.

Why are you avoiding this question?

I stated…

“The greenhouse atmosphere in your model is composed of different gasses. The atmosphere inside the greenhouse can be warmed because some of the gasses it is composed of are able to absorb infrared energy. The atmosphere in the greenhouse can be cooled because some of the gasses in the greenhouse atmosphere also emit the absorbed infrared energy.

Those gasses absorb, retain and emit energy differently based upon the size and shape of the molecule in question.”

That physics holds true whether the molecules are in your “controlled” greenhouse or floating freely in Earth’s atmosphere.

I get your point that the Earth doesn’t have a glass or plastic “greenhouse” surrounding it which is absolutely true.

My point is that the atmosphere absorbs and holds energy even without an actual glass or plastic “greenhouse” surrounding it. How do you explain that?

Again this is something you need to understand…

The physics describing the way gas molecules absorb and emit infrared energy doesn’t change whether they’re in your “controlled” greenhouse or floating free in the atmosphere.

You Said: “Thirdly within the Controlled greenhouse there are various methods of warming and cooling not simply radiation”

Yes heat is also transferred via conduction and convection which play very important parts in this story. Especially given the fact that heat energy in the atmosphere cannot be conducted or convected into space.

You Said: “So you see there are numerous aspects that require you to define what you mean by The Greenhouse effect,But you won’t do that because then your spurious arguments leading to “global warming” will fall apart.”

We’ve already agreed upon a definition / description of the greenhouse effect but if you really want it in my words I’ll just pull them from a previous comment…

The Greenhouse Effect

The Earth has an atmosphere. The atmosphere is composed of different gasses. The atmosphere warms when light passes through it because some of the gasses it is composed of are able to absorb infrared energy.

Those gasses absorb, retain and emit energy differently based upon the size and shape of the molecule in question.

PJ London

Simply put, the Greenhouse effect ONLY is valid in specific situations..

“A selective surface can be used when energy is being extracted from the sun. For instance, when a green house is made, most of the roof and walls are made out of glass. Glass is transparent in the visible and near-infrared wavelengths, but opaque to mid- to far-wavelength infrared. Therefore glass lets in radiation in the visible range, allowing us to be able to see through it, but doesn’t let out radiation that is emitted from objects at or close to room temperature. This traps what we feel as heat. This is known as the greenhouse effect and can be observed by getting into a car that has been sitting in the sun.”

Now without the controlled/enclosed/glass (or equivalent environment), there is no “Greenhouse” and therefore no “Greenhouse effect”

In addition, reflectivity has a major and significant effect on heat transfer, “If we have a surface, such as a glass window, with which we would like to reduce the heat transfer from, a clear reflective film with a low emissivity coating can be placed on the interior of the wall. “Low-emittance (low-E) coatings are microscopically thin, virtually invisible, metal or metallic oxide layers deposited on a window or skylight glazing surface primarily to reduce the U-factor by suppressing radiative heat flow””

and as such has no relationship to “gases” but a major effect on heat retention and loss.

If you want to debate gas thermodynamics, that is a separate subject but please do not attempt to equate gas heat transfer to “The Greenhouse effect” as though it is the only factor.

“please do not try to hoodwink people with kindergarten physics”

UniverseWeAre

Again you avoid answering the question and this time you even attempt to change the subject.

This discussion is all about atmospheric gasses and their thermodynamic properties. Specifically the gasses labeled as Greenhouse Gasses. The properties of these gasses allow the atmosphere to absorb and hold energy even without a “controlled/enclosed/glass” environment.

That is made obvious by the easily observable fact that you don’t freeze when the sun goes down or the lights go out.

The most you’ve accomplished is to show that comparing the atmosphere to a greenhouse is at worst, a poor analogy.

So…

Do you agree that the Earth has an atmosphere?

If so… Do you agree that the atmosphere is made of different gasses and vapors?

If so… Do you agree that some of those gasses and vapors absorb heat and some of them do not?

These are all facts from where I’m standing so if you disagree with any of that you’ll have to show some serious science.

If you do agree please say so and we can continue.

PJ London

Firstly, you were talking about “the Greenhouse effect” you then conflated that with “Gases”

I asked you to define “the Greenhouse effect” and you are the one wriggling around and refusing to discus your own terminology.

“The properties of these gasses allow the atmosphere to absorb and hold energy even without a “controlled/enclosed/glass” environment.” this is true but what has this to do with a greenhouse effect?

You (and your colleagues) are the people who are “comparing the atmosphere to a greenhouse [which[ is at worst, a poor analogy.” and that is the whole point of my comments, I am glad that we have sorted that out, and now we can dispense with the whole “greenhouse gas” nonsense.

UniverseWeAre

Ok lets agree to not use the word greenhouse anymore then. That is settled. I’d like to also point out that you used that term before I did here in this discussion.

It is also important to point out that you called the idea that CO2 absorbs energy from a specific part of the IR spectrum, “nonsense.”

You’ve come a long way since then…

So now we’ve determined that you agree with the following statements. I also agree with them so this gives us a great place to begin an intelligent debate…

The atmosphere exists.

The atmosphere absorbs and stores energy from both the sun and the Earth.

The atmosphere is composed of different gasses. Only some of the gasses are responsible for the fact that the atmosphere absorbs and stores energy.

The properties of these gasses allow the atmosphere to absorb and hold energy even without a “controlled/enclosed/glass” environment.

So now we should decide upon a name for these particular gasses in the atmosphere so we can distinguish them from the non-ir-energy-absorbing kind.

What name would you like to give them? I’m find with calling them GeorgeWBush gasses or anything else you’d prefer since the word, “greenhouse” seems so logically offensive lately.

PJ London

“It is also important to point out that you called the idea that CO2 absorbs energy from a specific part of the IR spectrum, “nonsense.””
Please provide any evidence, It is my opinion that you are deliberately lying.

I have not agreed “that only some of the gases are responsible….” as I do not know of any gas which does not absorb and radiate heat. Please enlighten me as to which gases have this property.

“So now we should decide upon a name for these particular gasses in the atmosphere so we can distinguish them from the non-ir-energy-absorbing kind.” are you making this up as you go along?

Once again you are confusing, in one sentence you are talking about “Energy” (The atmosphere absorbs and stores energy from both the sun and the Earth.) then you are talking about “non-ir-energy-absorbing kind”
what are you trying to say?

Do you know of any substance (gas liquid or solid) which does not absorb to some extent, IR energy? Or are you trying to say that these gases absorb energy other than IR?
Gases will absorb all forms of energy, kinetic, IR and visual wavelengths, plus any other EM radiation so I am not sure what point you are trying to make, if there is a point.

The correct term would be the earth’s atmosphere. It has been used for centuries and is clearly understood by all to be all gases and particles between the surface and the “solar wind” at around 800 miles, But we could agree on a lesser number, at about 200 miles the atmosphere is to all intents and purposes non-existent,

UniverseWeAre

Well there are three ways for heat to transfer between things.

Conduction – Metals conduct heat very well. Conduction happens when two molecules touch or are touching and exchange energy on a molecular level.

Convection – The movement of heat due to fluid motion away from the heat source. In air and water both convection and conduction happens (along with some radiation). The warmed gas expands and flows away from the source of heat while also conducting some of that energy to the cooler air molecules it bumps into.

Infrared Radiation (aka thermal) – Part of the spectrum of light responsible for most of the heat felt by objects at temperatures appropriate for living things. Some of the energy in air is also disbursed through this method.

All matter above absolute 0 radiates thermal energy. Just thought it was important to add that.

There are some gasses that do not absorb infrared radiation. O2 and N2 are great examples.

Other gasses like CH4, CO2, H2O and O3 (among others) definitely do absorb infrared radiation but not equally. These are the notorious “greenhouse” gasses which we already agreed is a poor analogy for such a complicated subject.

They all absorb their own combination of parts of the infrared spectrum.

This has to do with the symmetry (or lack symmetry) of the molecule and the number of bonds it has.

By the way, most gasses absorb very very little light from the visible wavelengths which is why most gasses appear to be invisible.

The point of all of this is the following.

If the atmosphere were absent from the Earth then the surface would be much much colder. About 33 degrees C.

If the atmosphere were composed of only O2 or N2 then the surface temperatures would be almost that cold except for whatever heat was conducted into the atmosphere from the heat on the surface from the sun.

Since the atmosphere is composed of not only N2, O2 but also CO2, CH4, O3 and other gasses it can absorb and store enough heat to make our lives and the biosphere possible.

CO2 is, therefore, one of the gasses responsible for the fact that our atmosphere is as warm as it is.

Now the question becomes, what happens when more and more of these proven-to-be heat trapping gasses get added to the atmosphere?

Some claim that the human race will become extinct because of this. I seriously doubt that.

Some claim that it will be disastrous unless we tax the people that emit the gasses. I seriously doubt that will work either.

We’ve reached the part of the debate that actually deserves debate.

Now that we’re here… What do you think?

PJ London

“There are some gasses that do not absorb infrared radiation. O2 and N2 are great examples.” however : water vapour, ozone and oxygen have known atmospheric absorption bands in the visible and near infrared spectra, so your point is ………?

“Since the atmosphere is composed of not only N2, O2 but also CO2, CH4, O3 and other gasses” you omitted the major gas H2O, is it not important in your opinion?

“and more of these proven-to-be heat trapping gasses” there you go again, in what way do they “trap” heat? Are you claiming that these gasses do not emit radiation?

If these gasses “trapped” heat/energy, then over some 4,000,000,000 years, the temperature would probably exceed the current or even historical levels.

If the gasses “trapped” heat, then how is that it gets cold at night? Do “the Gasses ” somehow switch off? Surely the emission of heat by solids (i.e. the ground) and the sea once the energy from the sun no longer strikes the surface (i.e. at night) shows that there is an interplay of energy absorption – emission, are you claiming that the atmosphere does not participate in this process? Obviously the emission of heat from the surface has to be into the atmosphere, but do you claim that it stays there, or does it become dissipated into space?

With regard to the composition of the atmosphere, do you regard the current composition and temperature to be “optimal”?

If CO2 was to increase, say to double the current level, such being levels previously recorded, would not the biosphere benefit? This is why commercial tomato growers create an environment with high levels of CO2. such environments, covered with glass are called “greenhouses” also run at higher temperatures, and they are very good at creating biomass, (doubling the tomato crop) which of course increases O2 levels.

If the surface temperature was to increase say 2deg, to the levels experienced in UK when Caesar was visiting, we could grow grapes in Yorkshire again, and all live in villas. Not to mention how nice and productive the land was in the Medieval Warming period, such that there were labour shortages in agriculture, the darn stuff was growing so fast.

We might even be able to extinguish “food poverty” in the world.

“Proven-to-be-heat-trapping”. having demolished that nonsense, then obviously the claim that “the human race will become extinct” is not a conclusion that can be derived.

UniverseWeAre

Given your intentionally and irrationally narrow definition of the word, “trapped,” which includes absolutely no possibility of, “escape,” we’ll use the technical terminology. Again it is interesting to note that you mentioned the word, “trap,” long before I did.

The atmosphere has what is called a heat capacity. This heat capacity is a function of the gasses it is composed of.

The heat capacity is measured as the amount of energy required to change the temperature of the system.

A potato has a high heat capacity compared to the heat capacity of a feather, Styrofoam cup or an aluminum bar.

These gasses we’re discussing (commonly called greenhouse gasses) change the thermal capacity of the atmosphere when their concentrations are increased or decreased.

The thermal capacity of the atmosphere increases when gasses like H20, O3, CH4 and CO2 are added to it.

The Earth receives way more thermal energy from the sun than it and the atmosphere can absorb so yes energy is always being radiated back out into space.

When the thermal capacity of the atmosphere goes up so too does the amount of energy that the atmosphere can absorb.

“so your point is ………?”

My point is that putting CO2 into the atmosphere changes the atmosphere’s thermal capacity allowing it to absorb more thermal energy.

“you omitted the major gas H2O”

I’ve mentioned H2O several times and that particular gas easily falls into the category of, “other gasses,” which I also made reference to multiple times.

“With regard to the composition of the atmosphere, do you regard the current composition and temperature to be ‘optimal’?”

Optimal for what? Every time you put quotes around a word that I have yet to use I get suspicious of your motives for using it. Let me know exactly what you mean by optimal and then we can use that word.

“If CO2 was to increase, say to double the current level, such being levels previously recorded, would not the biosphere benefit?”

Increased amounts of CO2 lead to enhanced plant growth so long as fertile soil and water aren’t limiting factors.

If either water or nutrients are limited the increase in CO2 in fact stunts plant growth and increases susceptibility to pests.

That is why commercial growers only see this work in very controlled environments where they can supply all the water and nutrients the plants need while also keeping the pests away.

Given the fact that soil fertility is being destroyed and fresh water is being depleted the increase in CO2 will probably have huge economic consequences for farmers.

There are low tech methods for building the soil that could probably do a lot of good but it requires that tilling be mostly stopped.

PJ London

You are absolutely right I used “trap” as in “the glass allows sunlight in but traps the outgoing “room temperature heat from escaping”, you then used “heat-trapping-gasses” Not heat trapping glasses.

You are back to sophistry, I asked : ” and more of these proven-to-be heat trapping gasses” there you go again, in what way do they “trap” heat? Are you claiming that these gasses do not emit radiation?

How does my asking you for an explanation become an “your intentionally and irrationally narrow definition of the word”?

Where did I suggest ” absolutely no possibility of, “escape,””

either you are being disingenuous or your are deliberately distorting the statements, which is it?

“My point is that putting CO2 into the atmosphere changes the atmosphere’s thermal capacity allowing it to absorb more thermal energy.” possibly, but NASA might disagree, but even if you are correct, so what? The earth has been changing it’s atmosphere for 4,000,000,000 years, why should it stop now? Including periods when CO2 has been much greater and when the temperature has been significantly warmer. Mankind thrived in such periods.

“H2O several times and that particular gas easily falls into the category of, “other gasses,” and are you claiming that H2O does not change the thermal capacity? Or that it is not a so-called “greenhouse gas”?

You want to hold the Atmosphere as it is currently (I presume, if not please tell us to what you wish to change it), and therefore it would appear that in your mind the current (or even pre-industrial) composition is “the best” hence optimal. Chose another word that describes how you feel the atmosphere would be “best, what it should be, how it ought to be, etc.”

“That is why commercial growers only see this work in very controlled environments where they can supply all the water and nutrients the plants need while also keeping the pests away.” No they only use where they can stop it from escaping, as it expensive to create. You are making this up as you go along.

“Given the fact that soil fertility is being destroyed and fresh water is being depleted” oh man you get better and better, any more red herrings in the wings?

“requires that tilling be mostly stopped.” great and then we can all starve and the worlds problems will be solved.

I am sorry, but unless you can at least pretend to be discussing the climate debate, I find that this is not productive.

The climate debate has two planks

1)”Man is over producing CO2 which will cause excessive temperature increase”
2) “Increase in CO2 and temperature will be damaging to the planet.”
(feel free to insert your interpretation of the warmist credo)

The article is about warmists who want to stifle debate by killing people who disagree. You want to pretend to debate Climate, but have resorted to sophistry and side-tracking to foil any real discussion.

Instead of trying to defend the warmist position, or provide any meaningful data or information, you want to carry on with strawmen.

Either address the items 1 and 2 or just say goodbye.

UniverseWeAre

You said: ” This traps what we feel as heat.”

What is trapping the heat that one feels while outside on a warm summer night?

PJ London

Nothing is “trapping” the heat, that is why it gets cold. What you are referring to (i would assume) is the differing rates of emission of heat. Just as sound is propagated at different speeds in different bodies, so energy is emitted at different rates.

Chicken Big

How do you explain the unprecedented winter weather we are having in the U.S. and in parts of Europe? How do you ignore or discount the effect of the sun and increased solar activity in all of your argument? Why is going on and on with your thesis here so important to you? If you are going to insist that you are right then you might try your theory at another website that disagrees with the AGW conclusion. While your arguments seem sound at explaining your position there is much left unexplained. There is also much in the area of damaged credibility that has to be overcome from the AGW side as well. Thanks for your input. It is appreciated after all. Best wishes.

The size and severity of the storm system increases as the size of the energy gradient increases.

The Sun…

I’ve mentioned the sun and made reference to the light and energy from the sun many times on this page. I’m not sure why you’d claim that I’m ignoring or discounting something that is essential to the thrust of my main point.

My thesis and why it is important…

There is a lot on this topic that needs to be debated and we need those debates to be productive.

To be productive we must agree upon what is not debatable. The fundamental physics behind the fact that adding H20, CH4 and CO2 to the atmosphere changes its thermal capacity belongs in that category.

I kept going because PJLondon kept asking for information that I had and I believed I could frame the information in a way that made sense to people. I never once thought that PJLondon would ever come around to my view but PJLondon wasn’t the only one reading.

The physics of the situation is important to this debate.

I did believe for a while that PJLondon was just an anti-warming bot and I was trying to reverse engineer the program that was running.

Once I realized that PJLondon was an actual flesh-and-blood human that seriously believed what he was typing it felt wrong to continue with that particular project but insight was gained.

Insisting…

The only thing I’m insisting is that the participants of the debate understand the physics involved so the debate can be productive. That way we can avoid silly and irrational comments like, “[AGW] is demonstrably false.”

The only way to demonstrate that CO2 concentrations have no effect on the thermal capacity of the atmosphere is to design a reproducible experiment that proves CO2 does not absorb infrared radiation.

That is the only way to begin to debate the relatively simple physics of the situation.

Until somebody does that, the following statement, “…human use of fossil fuels is increasing the thermal capacity of the atmosphere…” is not up for debate.

Debate urgently needs to happen surrounding the consequences of these changes. Somewhere between, “everything will be fine,” and, “life is doomed,” exists the reality of the situation.

Even more debate needs to happen surrounding how to deal with those changes. Banning the use of all fossil fuels is a horrible idea but so is continuing with business as usual.

Is a carbon tax a good idea? No it isn’t. The addiction to fossil fuels needs to be addressed but that’s not the way to do it.

Should we form a one world government to enforce green laws? Absolutely not and even if it were attempted there are not enough cheap resources left to successfully enforce any kind of world-wide green law. The resistance to something like that would be massive and only serve to waste precious resources.

Hopefully that answers your questions. Thanks back for the input and best wishes to you as well. 🙂

UniverseWeAre

You said: “The concept that CO2 is somehow different [from other gasses] is nonsensical.”

CO2 absorbs energy only from specific parts of the IR spectrum. It is not, “nonsense,” but verified fact. Now that you have the evidence that you called the idea nonsense we can move on further down thread…

PJ London

Of course CO2 absorbs energy only from specific parts of the IR spectrum, otherwise there would be no such thing as Spectrometry, the fact that your name is “John” makes you different from all other males not named “John” , does that imply that you are different from other males or other humans.
Sophistry again!!!

UniverseWeAre

If the gasses in the atmosphere aren’t storing energy then you would freeze when the sun went down. You owe your life to the greenhouse effect.

The atmosphere regulates the temperatures on the surface of the planet (among other places) because the molecules it is made up of absorb and reflect energy in very specific ways.

Those specific molecules and the ways they deal with energy have been fully experimentally verified. Feel free to look it up or reproduce the experiments so you can show us what is really happening.

jadan

It’s not the gases “storing energy”. Kind of a silly notion since they are low mass. Ever wonder why the earth beneath your feet maintains a fairly steady temp year round? Earth is a power house, v. hot at its core, and that’s the chief reason it doesn’t freeze over night like the Moon. Planets gain mass and are on their way to stardom.

UniverseWeAre

If you’re right then how do you explain the fact that sometimes in Wisconsin it is very hot and sometimes it is very cold?

Does Wisconsin somehow get closer to the mantle during summer and further away from it in winter?

Chubby Freen

Please bear in mind, Al Gore is NOT a scientist. He’s a salesman…

wunsacon

By the way, we already have an authoritarian world. A minority of Americans (and fewer people internationally) believe AGW is a hoax and yet drilling and killing for fossil fuels continues apace, because…follow the money.

The political process is superficially free. But, it’s captive to wealthy interests. As we’ve seen in finance and war, better risk-adjusted options will be sacrificed to maintain sacred cows and protect the status quo.

Fact: There has been no substantial warming in 15 years. Yes there has been variation, but no warming trend.

Fact: There was warming in the period 1977 to 1997, for 20 years and it was a pretty sharp rise. Which meant the past 15 years have been warm, but warming has stopped.

Fact: There has been rising atmospheric CO2 for the past 35 years. For the first 20 of those 35 years it correlated very closely to the rise in temperature – which created the global warming panic.

Fact: For the past 15 years that correlation is broken.

That’s all you need to know about man-made global warming. The very thing the warmers hung their hat on – that rising CO2 creates rising temperature – hung the premise when Co2 rise vs. temperature rise correlation was broken.

The debate is over. Warmers need to rely on science, not politically created “consensus” if they really care about the environment. And they need to learn a bit about the scientific method and the premise of skepticism as being critical to the process.

Thanks for so perfectly proving my point – no warming for the past 15 years, lots of warming before that.

Now go back another 70 years and show the same graphic and show the previous rise and fall in temperature.

Go back 300 years and show the rise and fall before that.

Ok, now put Co2 on the same graphic and show the correlation going negative the past 15 years.

Truth hurts when you lie on a bed of lies doesn’t it?

Chubby Freen

Who measured the atmospherice CO2 300 years ago, so you could compare them? And, I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t consider .02 degrees C to be “lots of warming”. Where I live, the temperatures in winter are subfreezing, then hit near 100 during the summer. No drowning polar bears reported here…

james

I don’t think they knew what Co2 was 300 years ago, however there are indicators of historic Co2 levels. It fluctuates, just like it is fluctuating now.

The global temp rose about .4 degrees C in the period from 1977 to 1997 – which seemed like a pretty steep rise. (about the same rise as the 20 year rise in the early 20th century)

If it would have kept on rising at that rate – then the disastrous flooding and drought and other calamities the warmers and their Deity Al Gore predicted, might actually be feasible.

But of course it did not. The warming essentially stopped after a peak in 1998. So in about 2008 or so the Global Warming Cabal coined the phrase “Global Climate Change” – because they couldn’t tell their minions that “global warming” was wrong.

And more importantly, the claim that carbon emissions were causing the earth to warm (which was ludicrous from the start) was definitively broken – although the minions obviously haven’t figured that one out yet either.

For a bunch that claims to be “scientific” the warmers sure are stupid about basic statistics and correlations.

wunsacon

>> Thanks for so perfectly proving my point – no warming for the past 15 years

Looks like “no warming for ~14 years from around ’77 to ’91” either. And then it rises again.

That proves your point so perfectly?

james

No but you do seem to prove my other point pretty clearly – that warmers can’t seem to understand statistics.

I would recommend you look again.

Chubby Freen

Pull your head out of your ass before you suffer further brain damage. How is it that paying Al Gore to print “carbon offsets” out of his computer saves us from “Global Warming”? Too, I really LOVE the stories about the the ice shelves melting every summer. That’s because they ALWAYS have. They melt in the summer (that’s June in the Arctic, January in the Antarctic), and refreeze in the winter. You can read a fascinating story about a turn-of-the-last-century Antarctic explorer names Sir Ernest Shackleton in the book “South”. His ship was caught in the ice as he approached the shore of Antarctica around 1911–it had suddenly frozen 500 or so miles out from the shore. They were stranded there, their ship’s hull being crushed as the pressure of the ice slowly built up. They were trapped there until Spring, when the ice shelf melted sufficiently to enable them to row away in dinghies. Oh–and I really like Al Gore’s story about New York City being covered by 20 feet of water when the ice caps melt. When water freezes it EXPANDS, when it melts back into a liquid, if CONTRACTS. If both polar ice caps melted tomorrow morning at 9:30 GMT, NYC’s shoreline would move out a few centimeters. If you have doubts about this principle, fill a glass with icecubes and then add as much water as you can, then see how long it takes for the ice to melt and flood your house…

mwpncookeville

More to the point- what do we do about it?

My opinion, is that if you believe that climate change is a
serious threat, and yet you oppose nuclear power as one of, if not the only, serious contender to create large amounts of electricity without CO2 emissions then you and your ideology are part of the problem- not the solution. If you believe so called renewables alone can supply the electricity this planet needs now and in the future you are dreaming.

The world needs more power not less- that is unless you want to sentence the balance of the humans on the planet that don’t currently have reliable electric power to stay that way. Even many of the environmental crusaders of the last several decades have finally come to the realization that there is no free lunch, and are now nuclear advocates.

Most renewable facilities utilize a fossil fuel backup for base load as solar and wind are sporadic suppliers of electricity, and we need to carry a base load at all times. Recently burning natural gas is the go to method for this base load production, and it is way better than coal regarding CO2 emissions and pollution, but is still emitting CO2. For a very balanced documentary regarding nuclear and the future please see the CNN produced documentary film Pandora’s Promise.

Name

Weather isn’t climate, but temperature isn’t even weather. There’s also humidity, dewpoint, windspeed, and barometric pressure. What do tree rings or ice cores tell us about those? What do the models tell us? How do rising temperatures cause the other factors to more frequently combine in storm conditions? To what extent are those factors guessed at when evaluating the models? Why is there never news about how these factors are departing from historical norms?

Name

I forgot about visibility. Should we be concerned about global average visibility? I mean, by 2100 we might not be able to see shit.

jadan

The warmers have converted science into religion. The crusade of the Reverend Bill McKibben and His Grace Bishop James Hansen have so obscured the issue of climate that we can’t see shit right now…..

UniverseWeAre

Debate is fine but only between people who have a full understanding of the physics behind the fact that humans don’t freeze to death when the sun goes down.

Name

The physics of greenhouse gases, no matter how esoteric and no matter how correct, only go to establishing a baseline temperature. They say nothing about how temperatures vary about the baseline, unless you believe that temperatures would be constant if the level of greenhouse gas was constant. The debate is about the effects of constantly rising temperatures, not whether the greenhouse effect exists.

You can get a degree in mechanical engineering and learn absolutely nothing about car repair.

UniverseWeAre

I agree. Exactly. Debating AGW with people who don’t understand the basic physics of the situation is like asking somebody to troubleshoot your engine when they’ve never seen one before.

There is much to be debated. The parts that are up for debate are how disastrous it will be and what, if anything, should be done about it.

Not up for debate are the facts that the greenhouse effect exists and that CO2 and Methane are greenhouse gasses. Another fact that can’t be denied is that humans are responsible for putting a lot of both of those greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

Debate on this topic is absolutely necessary on assuming that both sides can agree with the limitations mentioned above.

Anybody that hasn’t reached those conclusions either hasn’t thought it through or lacks the mental capacity to do that thinking.

UniverseWeAre

I agree. Exactly. Debating AGW with people who don’t understand the basic physics of the situation is like asking somebody to troubleshoot your engine when they’ve never seen one before.

There is much to be debated. The parts that are up for debate are how disastrous it will be and what, if anything, should be done about it.

Not up for debate are the facts that the greenhouse effect exists and that CO2 and Methane are greenhouse gasses. Another fact that can’t be denied is that humans are responsible for putting a lot of both of those greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

Debate on this topic is absolutely necessary on assuming that both sides can agree with the limitations mentioned above.

Anybody that hasn’t reached those conclusions either hasn’t thought it through or lacks the mental capacity to do that thinking.

mwpncookeville

EDITED TO FIX THE FORMATTING

More to the point- what do we do about it?

My opinion, is that if you believe that climate change is a
serious threat, and yet you oppose nuclear power as one of, if not the only, serious contender to create large amounts of electricity without CO2 emissions then you and your ideology are part of the problem- not the solution. If you believe so called renewables alone can supply the electricity this planet needs now and in the future you are dreaming.

The world needs more power not less- that is unless you want to sentence the balance of the humans on the planet that don’t currently have reliable electric power to stay that way. Even many of the environmental crusaders of the last several decades have finally come to the realization that there is no free lunch, and are now nuclear advocates.

Most renewable facilities utilize a fossil fuel backup for base load as solar and wind are sporadic suppliers of electricity, and we need to carry a base load at all times. Recently natural gas is the go to source for this base load, and it is way better than coal regarding CO2 emissions and pollution, but is still emitting CO2. For a very balanced documentary regarding nuclear and the future please see the CNN produced documentary film Pandora’s Promise.

Brian Hoffstetter

So the PTB want to treat global warming like the holocaust, indisputable because they say so.

Jason Vega

Chomsky is cia and sold pat tillman out

whiteaglesoaring

Chomsky is a gatekeeper of the left.

Anon

Read the Club of Rome Report, from 1971/1972 entitled: The Limits of
Growth. You can find it online, as a .pdf. In that report, “they” (the
collectivists/socialists) were already trying to come up with a way, to
put FEAR into the general population, over natural processes, or
processes of nature, while controlling the narrative (via their media,
and their academia/”scientists”, who, if they don’t follow the
predetermined narrative, will not get tenure, and will eventually lose
their jobs), to get people to acquiesce to further controls and taxes.
That is all “global warming” is – another ruse, a MEME, created by the
1% to further control YOU, and everyone else on the planet, and for the
1% to further profit, at YOUR expense.

UniverseWeAre

It amazes me how important it is to you that what you wrote be true.

If you were working off of current information you’d know that the predictions made in Limits to Growth are almost exactly on track and not because of any conspiracy other than the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

Latimer Alder

Which particular aspects of the predictions in ‘Limits to Growth’ do you judge to be ‘on track’? What evidence would you advance to substantiate your claim?

UniverseWeAre

All of the following is publicly available data. Please feel free to verify it.

Food production and services are up like they predicted though their predictions were slightly lower.

Population is right where they said it would be.

Industrial output is a bit lower than they said it would be but the trajectory is still visibly being followed.

The non-renewable resource consumption and diminishing returns on their production is as bad as they thought it would be and is already showing itself in the economy.

wunsacon

…And although more humans than ever live comfortable lives fit for a 14th-century king, far more than ever just scrape by above starvation. Many do not. Even obese Westerners are nutrition-poor and resort to carbs. Despite the ever-decreasing cost of electronics, real income in these nations has fallen.

Meanwhile, cornucopians seem to think Malthus and Club of Rome predicted “everyone will die”. Cornucopians judge us Cassandras not on the basis of what we say but of what they hear.

UniverseWeAre

Exactly. Malthus merely predicted that millions upon millions would die of starvation and warfare of humanity continued on the trajectory it was on.

How many have died from starvation and wars since he made his prediction?

H’mm. Not sure about crude oil … not sure that the type of production (conventional or unconventional) is very relevant. And since the amount of production is in large measure a political rather than a technical decision, I’m not sure that you can draw many conclusions from just that one number.

What about the other measures? The book you cite was published 10 years ago so I guess the stats in it are at least 11 years old..

Gotta say that if indeed food production is higher than was predicted, I think that should be celebrated as good news, not as a sign of looming catastrophe. Please try to persuade me otherwise.

UniverseWeAre

Your conclusion that oil production is limited more by politics than by physics is a conclusion that is not informed by fact.

There is no politician that decided the physical make-up of the source rock underlying the Bakken formation in North Dakota / Montana. Politics has nothing to do with the fact that engineers have to drill vertically, drill horizontally and then hydraulically fracture the source rock to allow the relatively tiny amounts of oil to flow out of the cracks.

The oil being produced from Canada’s Tar Sands, Deep Water, tight oil in North Dakota’s Bakken and Texas’ Eagle Ford formation (…and soon from shale mining in Utah) are all examples of expensive oil produced via unconventional means. All of these types of oil production must overcome larger and larger technical obstacles to produce a barrel of oil. Overcoming these technical difficulties requires time and money which lead to an expensive end product.

If you ever hear news about “trillions of barrels of oil” it has to do with these very expensive to produce resources.

Conventional oil on the other hand is oil that can be produced relatively cheaply using conventional methods. This category includes oil produced using EOR. It is this type of oil (the cheap stuff) that has peaked and is declining. Politicians have nothing to do with how much oil can be pumped from these conventional wells.

Granted there are some cheap oil plays that are, “off-limits,” politically speaking but relative to consumption they are tiny resources. The US consumes 19,000,000 barrels per day (7,000,000,000 per year). At that rate all of the politically off-limits cheap oil in the US would be burnt in under a decade (not that it could all be produced that quickly even if the political will was there). That conclusion gives a very generous benefit of the doubt to the estimates of available cheap oil. Using more conservative estimates of cheap in-the-ground (yet still off-limits) US oil we only get a few years worth of consumption.

Latimer Alder

OPEC decide on production quotas for their member countries to maximise their political/economic/financial advantages. Technical stuff barely features in their discussions.

And beyond a certain point of stockpiling.production is driven by demand, not by capability.

Accordingly I stand by my remarks that you cannot draw any big conclusions about current resource availability or its future from production numbers.

And, if I may say so, you are looking at thngs thru a very US-centric pair of spectacles. The world is far bigger than just the USA.

UniverseWeAre

I’d love to see a link to any place where I claimed that, “we are completely running out of oil.”

There will always be oil in the ground but most of it will be too expensive to remove.

The members of OPEC set their own quotas by over-stating reserves. OPEC has the power to reduce oil production but not drastically increase it for any sustained period of time. Find the times that OPEC claimed it would boost production and then look at their production numbers.

Just to make sure we’re clear, I will never claim that we will run out of oil. The most I’ll claim is that the broken-ass economy can barely afford oil priced as it is.

Oil is an example of a global Keystone Commodity. One upon which almost everything relies. In a bakery the keystone commodity is, of course, flour. On a sports team the keystone commodity are the players.

Fossil fuel production plateaus and declines are an amazing leading indicator for recession, food price inflation, social unrest and war.

I (and other biophysical economists) would probably go so far as claiming that the production plateau/decline had a direct causal relationship with the economic and political stress that occurs after the resource event.

[EDIT: Causation doesn’t require proof for this to be considered a leading indicator. The pattern simply has to match.]

I encourage you to research economic and political stress that occurred after the following resource peaks and subsequent declines…

I’ve researched the events following those peaks intensely and have noticed a very real pattern. As you research keep an eye out for changes in the gold price and the gold standard too. They take place very near very important peaks.

Oil production is going up in the US again and it will peak shortly. Care to guess what will happen economically and politically once that occurs?

UniverseWeAre

Also I concentrated on the USA for that particular question because that is where a majority of the politically off-limits oil exists in one form or another.

The politically locked-up resource with the highest estimate barrel of oil equivalent is the gigantic shale resource in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado.

The size of the resource is impressive but actual production from shale resources is extremely slow especially after the best spots have been mined.

UniverseWeAre

Yes that book is old but it details the data sources. Many of which are still available.

If the book doesn’t interest you then you might enjoy Gail Tverberg’s take on the subject. Her information is available from http://ourfiniteworld.com

Latimer Alder

I took a look but I couldn’t see much there that wasn’t just another rehash of the old Peak Oil scare.

FWIW, in my country in Europe, beyond the use of petrol and diesel for transportation, our major energy sources are coal, gas and nuclear.

UniverseWeAre

Yes ourfiniteworld.com is a rehash of peak oil the same way that the theory of relativity is a rehash of Newtonian physics.

UniverseWeAre

As far as the declines are concerned I think we’ll end up seeing those a bit sooner than the book indicates.

Conventional crude oil production has already peaked and will be declining faster and faster as years progress.

The aspect of the situation that Limits to Growth didn’t account well for was the vast amounts of debt the nations of the world would go into to keep business as usual.

Those debt limits are likely going to cause quicker declines in services and industrial output than predicted.

wunsacon

Well, you tried. But, all your arguments couldn’t overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect radiating from most other readers here. 😉

Rogoraeck

There’s no HATER like a lefty-greeny HATER!

carcass

You want to talk climate change then explain chemtrails first…whose doing it? what are you spraying? and why?

mwpncookeville

More to the point- what do we do about it?

My opinion, is that if you believe that climate change is a
serious threat, and yet you oppose nuclear power as one of, if not the only, serious contender to create large amounts of electricity without CO2 emissions then you and your ideology are part of the problem- not the solution. If you believe so called renewables alone can supply the electricity this planet needs now and in the future you are dreaming.

The world needs more power not less- that is unless you want to sentence the balance of the humans on the planet that don’t currently have reliable electric power to stay that way. Even many of the environmental crusaders of the last several decades have finally come to the realization that there is no free lunch, and are now nuclear advocates.

Most renewable facilities utilize a fossil fuel backup for base load as solar and wind are sporadic suppliers of electricity, and we need to carry a base load at all times. Recently burning natural gas is the go to method for this base load production, and it is way better than coal regarding CO2 emissions and pollution, but is still emitting CO2. For a very balanced documentary regarding nuclear and the future please see the CNN produced documentary film Pandora’s Promise.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, economic, scientific, and educational issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: